Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
STATION
SFGTV 73
SFGTV2 36
CSPAN 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
LANGUAGE
English 113
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 113 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is there any public comment on the items proposed for continuance? seeing none. commissioner antonini. >> move to move items one and two to the date proposed and item 15 to january 17, 2013. >> second. >> >> on that motion to continue commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> commissioner fong. >> aye. >> that passes seven to zero will will place you under the consent calendar. all items constitute the consent calendar considered routine by the pla
, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there i
support commissioner borden's point and difficult to have every thursday. i'm not complaining exactly, but looking at the calendar from february to the end of may it's every single thursday so whether for 2013 or for the future i think it's just important to think about work load and just recognize there is no break. we get the packets at the end of thursday and work through the next thursday in addition to everyone's other job. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, when you accept the position on the planning commission it comes with the territory and we have a very important business that we handle and protects in san francisco get delayed enough from continuances of other issues and if we're not here it's a reason something gets delayed further and our economy to some degree is depended upon us and doesn't move to the board of supervisors until we hear it usually so i am prepared to meet as many thursdays as we have to. i had questions on comments -- i guess commissioner wu. why would we be off on the five? somebody said september 5? >> commissioner antonini that falls right in the
for directing staff to consider legitimatization of uses policy commissioner apt knee knee. >>> aye, borden aye hillis aye. >> would? no commissioner president fong. >> so moved that commissioner passes four to three with commissioners moore, sag guya and voting against. >> i heard there was cp to allow ground floor reds terrible mr. teeing is that something that you were putting before us here,. >> sure and it's something that i'm hypothecate putting before you as a package because of the affordable housing trust fund created a scenario where we could not increase affordable housing requirements lieu a new rezonings and legislation and through certain exemptions one being that the site was getting 20% bump in gross developable area the problem with ct and the regional commercial district is while they permanent housing on every floor, on the ground floor of large project, they restrict it and they don't permit it and so, to meet that 20% criteria in the charter, we would need to remove that planning prohibition of residential uses in the district on large sites on the ground flo
comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner borden? >>> yeah, i think this is an excellent prolong and it's great to see project coming forward in the tran as it center design district and i love that this connects with the park and i it's design is hasp superior to it's initial outline design for us to review. i do understand that there was a a conversation around the disielgt entitlement period for this project and for the disciple district that there is a five year entitlement period and i just wanted to ask if this project was getting it as well. >> and so the standard entitlement for the project is three years and various entitlement and is so for various office allocations the know is 18 months and so as part of the is the televise it saying that you have three years for the office allocation but if you are an office prolong of fee 500 feet or more then you are allowed five years to commence the construction for the office allocation and is to this is not an office project of 500,000 square feet or more so this is subject to the three year limitation which, is still more
. >> commissioner borden? >> this project has certainly come aways. it's ridiculous in my personal view that there weren't these kind of conversations before. at this point i don't think that we're ready to take up this project. i think that there is a lot of work to be done. the adjacent buildings points out a lot of problems and mr. schoolneck pointed out things are moving, but there are things to be done. i don't think you can necessarily arrive at a quick resolution after so much time and effort has been put insofar. it's a shame that a lawsuit is what was required for the project sponsor to work the community. i think this seems to be heading in the right direction, but it's certainly not there. i think there is a lot more dialogue that needs to happen between the developer and the community. i don't think there is an urgent need for us to take this up in the immediate future. i recognize that the termination of this might be a different project, but it's fundamentally still a market-rate housing project of similar type and scope. so i can understand why people could feel that we
on the merits of the application. >>> commissioner borden yeah, the only thing that i was saying it's contempted in this plan for quite some time and this is prohibited and you would think that a application use on file would make sure that it's zoning differently to make sure that the use could happen but it's part of a larger plan hat rules do not apply and some of us commissioners are sling without doing the correct work and i think that is the issue that we are having with the grandfathering issue. i'm not saying that we shouldn't do it i'm just saying that is the history that you wanted to know about and that is if you filed a c u application and a process waiting to happen. and they occupied the space and they need to be told that they have a c u and now they are trying to get it a at a later date and so if we don't want to be concerned with rewarding people for bad behavior because there is no reason to follow the rules if you done. >> well i'm not in support of this. as was pointed out, the academy of art university did do a master plan and instituted this as one of the
antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that passes unanimously. commissioners, we are going to call items 9(a) and b out of order. at 4 i 22 vincente street. >> ask the commi
: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye wu aye,. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini aye, commissioner borden aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that passes u
feelings. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, i do have a question for staff. so, i do think that -- i know we're trying to monitor new housing, but this also sounds like you want to create an inventory of student housing as an overall city-wide baseline. is that something you're trying to accomplish as well? i just want to understand why because you had a lot of -- >> so, the purpose [speaker not understood] what happens when you convert student housing. that was kind of the main concern of the legislation. but we are interested in having a [speaker not understood] inventory. >> okay. i think -- i think then when you talk about it that way, you know, and i think that's where you can get some input maybe from the university then. i don't think they would generally have a problem with providing that information. i think obviously there might be, i don't know, statistic information about locations of housing sites that they my not want to disclose for safety or other reasons. * may not want to disclose but i think it's a reasonable desire to have that. i think it would be useful to have that as
on it. thanks. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, while i feel, you know, i'm sorry about ms. yee's garden, as we know on this commission in a dense city, for panels people put a lot of money in, they're not protected. i feel terrible that your garden might not be as habitable. in terms of extraordinary circumstances, there is not anything in this case that rises to the level of exceptional and extraordinary. and that's what the threshold is for taking a d-r. there are many cases, like i said, in this city where people fill up panels, people have gardens, people have things they want protected. if you had a lightwell issue or an issue that wasn't being matched or something that was more planning related that would be different. additionally, we don't -- it's not our business to redesign the interior of people's projects. they hire architects and they do that and it's not, you know, our place to make them redesign the interior. that's just not the purview that we have 689 so, with that i would move to not take d-r and approve the project as proposed. * >> commissioner antonini. >> i just wa
, tom borden, ken mcgary, may wo ng and roland labron. but any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item please come forward. again, this is on item number ten. are the folks who signed the speaker cards please come up? >> go ahead, sir. >> hi, i'm tom borden and i am with sf urban riders and another group whose name shall not be mentioned but i just wanted to review some history on the park. and basically my premise is that mancel is a bright that has been on the park by the transit planners and this has been realized since the first master plan was put together in 1983 and a lot of things have changed over the course of these master plans in the 1983 master plan, they said that mancell something had to be done about mancel and the plan proposed dropping it down on the north side of the ridge, and that did not seem too workable. and then in the 1985 master plan, they decided to close mancell from the two ends of shelly and force people to drive around that horse shoe of shelly to get around the park and that was dropped. in 1989 they gave up fixing mancell and in 1
comment portion is closed. commissioner borden? >> i support the presentation. i think we ought to name more of our commercial corridor districts and really reign in the controls in a way that's -- that makes sense for that corridor and allow those corridorses to set the rules they like. that is one of the challenges with the nc1, 2 and 3 classifications. so, with that i move to approve with the modifications. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have some questions on the legislation. i guess the first one has to do with the changes from parking. now, we're talking about residential parking or commercial parking? * >> i believe it changes the -- all to maximum parking rather than minimum parking in the new ncd. >> yeah, but it depends which it is and what the maximums are. >> they're the standard found in section 151. so, all the other districts that have had this done to them have maximum parking controls. i'm sorry, i don't have that section of the code in front of me for the parking, though. >> seems to me it would be related more to the commercial establishments that front div
that commissioner borden was dealing with, and these are permits. someone gets a permit to make changes to their house or some sort of thing that's over the counter and they don't need to go through process. but there is an environmental cad ex to this as there is to almost anything. and i guess right now i'm hearing there is no limit or a six-month statutory limit to an appeal of a cad ex on this type of project. what is the number on that? >> there is no requirement for notice under state law. there are a number of notice provisions that are in existing article and there are supplemental notices like posting on website that we do now. but basically whether you get that notice or whether you don't, you need to exercise your rights within six months. that's how c-e-q-a is structured. >> well, this i think is something that supervisor is trying to deal with and it's a little unrealistic. and it happens, i've heard of many instances where projects are approved. the project sponsor begins, has the contractor, is almost starting to do work sometimes. and, you know, during that period of tim
? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. >> the commission is going to take a short break and we will come back. >>please stand by; meeting in recess like to welcome everybody back to san francisco's planning commission hearing for november 29, 2012. i'd like to remind members investment audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar for the benefit of the public item 15 has been continued which places you under item 16, case no. 2003.0527u, 1000 16th street (daggett park) in-kind agreement. >> good afternoon, commissioners, steve [speaker not understood], department staff. i'm please today present to you an in-kind agreement for 16th street daggett park. it is the mile steyn towards a new park in ship place square [speaker not understood]. this agreement reflects over a year in c
none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner borden? >> yes, to the zoning administrator, for noise ordinance, what are the requirements around noise and i know it's after a certain point in the evening. i have live near nightclubs, bars and all the rest and see this issue all the time, where most of san francisco businesss do not have air conditioning. it gets very warm and people open windows and obviously sound travels out, because even if you have people at your private home and your windows are open, your neighbors can hear that typically. what are the sound ordinance -- noise ordinance sort of rules around the sound travel for any business, i guess? >> i don't know all the details specifically. it's enforced by -- it's enforced by several departments depending on the type of sound it is. in this case it's the entertainment commission and they have someone experienced in using the sound equipment. i believe it's a rating above ambient can be. if they are above that, they are in violation of the sound ordinance and unfortunately i don't know what decibel level t
of the project. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, i would just -- want to agree with everything commissioner moore said. she pretty much took my comments out of my mouth. i just wanted to add for the benefit of the public that this project required to have on-site affordability so there would be 49 affordable units. this is also a project that is part of the transit center development plan so the fees from this project actually fund all of the different improvements that we want in that region related to creating the transit center district and the open space, other affordable housing, et cetera. so, it's not a singular project, being considered as part of a whole. i just wanted the benefit of the audience you to know that. there was an e-i-r done for this entire area to look at the cumulative impacts of these individual projects that we're approving. so, it's not as if this project wasn't considered as part of a whole. it was part of a larger plan to densify this part of the city. more parking than many people might like. it is compliant and a reduction of what we have had in our code for parking
with respect -- well, back to the original question that supervisor borden started with or other commissioners have mentioned. in terms of the process of automatically going to the board of supervisors on issues like zoning or whatever that they also have jurisdiction over , isn't the wording in the legislation such that it says the board of supervisors will be the final certification body? i didn't quite understand that language. because if we're now saying that the -- that this commission certifies the e-i-r, then how can the board of supervisors certify the e-i-r? >> bill wyco again. there's was one commenter -- actually, it should be the board. that's not what the legislation says. the legislation says that if there is an appeal of the c-e-q-a action to the board, then they have to be either affirmed, recertify, if you will, that's not technically legally what it is. but the matter is before them in their consideration. so, it's only in the case of a c-e-q-a appeal that they are acting to certify. in the case of something that isn't appealed but is a legislative action by the board, like a
borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? excuse me, he's absent. commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. >> thank you. >> that motion passes +6 to -0. >> do you guys want a break here? >> really quick. >> i think we're going to take a quick -- yeah, five-minute break. thank you. >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> this is to develop a limited financial serve is e service sterling bank and trust at 115 pest portal avenue in the west portal neighborhood commercial district. the project is not considered for formula retail, formula retail exempts financial services. the proposed branch would occupy 199 square feet at the front of an existing commercial space. the department does not support this request because a large amount of commercial ground story frontage in the retail district is already occupied by several large scale financial institutions including bank of america, chase bank citibank, first america bank [speaker not understood]. their well served
and that was never done. >> commissioner borden. >> maybe we can make a recommendation. i think that there is a lot of different details that werer we're not in a position to say approve with these modifications, but i think we can make a recommendation to the supervisor saying we like, for example, we like the streamline board processes and kind of the enumeration of how things should happen and what time frames, what kind of documents are necessary. i think that air the area we all identified most problematic is the issue around the first discretionary action appeal kick-in process, clarity around what that would be. would that be, i think -- whether clarity around what kinds of permits or actions that would apply to so we can discuss that although my personal preference would be it relate to planning or building related permit. at least we could have -- in future discussions with the community and others, looking at what those field of permits are going to the 30 days versus 20 days, when there is -- when there should be notice, [speaker not understood] default into a longer time 012a yd because
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 113 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)